Criminal Revision Petition No. 2505/2011. Case: Pushparaj and Ors. Vs The State of Karnataka. Karnataka High Court

Order:

B.A. Patil, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners assailing by the judgment of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2010 dated 30.11.2010 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by I Additional JMFC Gulbarga in CC No. 959/2007 dated 18.06.2010 has been confirmed under sections 3(f) and 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

2. The gist of the allegation as per the complaint are that on 23.01.2006 respondent police received credible information about illegal possession and storage of gaslet (kerosene) near Gandorinala. Immediately along with panch witnesses and his staff made a raid. They found accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present there possessing four cans containing 50 liters of each kerosene and two plastic cans containing 20 liters of kerosene. On enquiry the accused persons did not produce any permit or a licence for having held the said kerosene in their possession. It is further alleged that they were selling the said kerosene at the rate of Rs. 25/- per liter. The same was seized by drawing a mahazar and accused persons were also apprehended. On the basis of police report, a case has been registered in Cr. No. 8/2006. After investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. The Trial Court after securing the accused persons after following the procedure laid down u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter hearing, the plea was recorded. Since accused denied and claimed to be tried, as such trial was fixed.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record and have not considered admissions, contradictions and omissions occurred in the cross examination. He would further contend that the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer, which will be fatal to the case of prosecution. He would also further contend that the seized articles have not been produced before the Court and have not got marked. He would also further contend that the prerequisites of the Essential Commodities Act has not been proved. He would further contend that it is necessary for the prosecution to place on record the order which according to them was the foundation for taking action against the accused/petitioners, failing which the entire proceedings is going to vitiating and as such the order of the Trial Court is not sustainable in law. In...